Francis Berger's Blog, page 39
November 9, 2023
How to Bungle Bollix in One Easy Step
Bollocks.
I was sixteen when I first heard this word. I was visiting a friend who had moved to England, and one evening in a Chester pub, I overheard a man utter the word after his mate had meticulously described some social initiative the Thatcher government was tabling. I discreetly asked my friend for a definition, to which he replied,
“Bullshit. Nonsense. Rubbish. But the word means balls.”
“Between-the-legs balls?”
My friend grinned and nodded.
“What a great word!” I exclaimed.
As I finished my pint, I made a solemn teenage vow that I would incorporate the word bollocks into my active vocabulary from that moment forward; however, like most of the solemn vows I made back then, nothing ever came of it -- not even after I discovered the word featured in the title of a Sex Pistols album.
Etymology Online offers the following on this vulgar British term:
bollocks (n.)
"testicles," 1744, variant of ballocks, from Old English beallucas "testicles," from Proto-Germanic *ball-, from PIE root *bhel- (2) "to blow, swell." In British slang, as an ejaculation, "nonsense!" from 1919.
The word bollocks also led to the more recent verb bollix, coined in an apparent euphemistic respelling in the US in 1937 to describe botching, bungling, ruining, or messing up something.
Though the noun and verb have different spellings, their pronunciation is the same, which could be confusing if one is a bit hazy on the context.
Imagine bollixing bollocks! Note added: Apparently, bollock (singular, not bollocks) is a vulgar verb in British usage meaning the act of reprimanding someone severely.
I was sixteen when I first heard this word. I was visiting a friend who had moved to England, and one evening in a Chester pub, I overheard a man utter the word after his mate had meticulously described some social initiative the Thatcher government was tabling. I discreetly asked my friend for a definition, to which he replied,
“Bullshit. Nonsense. Rubbish. But the word means balls.”
“Between-the-legs balls?”
My friend grinned and nodded.
“What a great word!” I exclaimed.
As I finished my pint, I made a solemn teenage vow that I would incorporate the word bollocks into my active vocabulary from that moment forward; however, like most of the solemn vows I made back then, nothing ever came of it -- not even after I discovered the word featured in the title of a Sex Pistols album.
Etymology Online offers the following on this vulgar British term:
bollocks (n.)
"testicles," 1744, variant of ballocks, from Old English beallucas "testicles," from Proto-Germanic *ball-, from PIE root *bhel- (2) "to blow, swell." In British slang, as an ejaculation, "nonsense!" from 1919.
The word bollocks also led to the more recent verb bollix, coined in an apparent euphemistic respelling in the US in 1937 to describe botching, bungling, ruining, or messing up something.
Though the noun and verb have different spellings, their pronunciation is the same, which could be confusing if one is a bit hazy on the context.
Imagine bollixing bollocks! Note added: Apparently, bollock (singular, not bollocks) is a vulgar verb in British usage meaning the act of reprimanding someone severely.
November 6, 2023
No, Delusions Do Not Breed Cowardice
Delusions breed cowardice.
We cannot believe falsehoods in quite the same way as truths. Unless one is clinically insane, one cannot lie to oneself with absolute conviction: reality asserts a residue of doubt, and so one is afraid to put one’s daydreams to the test.
Thus writes Stephen Vizinczey in The Rules of Chaos, published in 1969.
I beg to differ.
The decades since Vizinczey penned the passage above have proven that delusions do not breed cowardice; on the contrary, they breed hubris, pride, vanity, conceit, and pomposity.
Delusions also attract money – truckloads of it – and fame, popularity, prestige, rank, and power.
Delusions are not only rewarded but held in high regard. They are admired, studied, respected, esteemed, and exalted.
Delusions also offer safety, security, solidness, and soundness.
Our modern milieu has revealed that people are extremely adept at believing falsehoods and virtually incapable of seeing truth – even obvious, mundane ones.
They seem perfectly adept at lying to themselves with absolute conviction. Most lie to themselves with absolute conviction several hundred times daily, leaving no space for doubt residues. Modern people are more than happy to put their daydreams to the test – at least the daydreams the System promotes.
Does this mean that modern people are clinically insane?
If by clinically insane we mean “mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot conduct her/his affairs due to psychosis, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior,” then yeah, I guess most modern people are clinically insane.
So what now, Mr. Vizinczey? Wait for reality to reassert itself through chance, randomness, and chaos?
We cannot believe falsehoods in quite the same way as truths. Unless one is clinically insane, one cannot lie to oneself with absolute conviction: reality asserts a residue of doubt, and so one is afraid to put one’s daydreams to the test.
Thus writes Stephen Vizinczey in The Rules of Chaos, published in 1969.
I beg to differ.
The decades since Vizinczey penned the passage above have proven that delusions do not breed cowardice; on the contrary, they breed hubris, pride, vanity, conceit, and pomposity.
Delusions also attract money – truckloads of it – and fame, popularity, prestige, rank, and power.
Delusions are not only rewarded but held in high regard. They are admired, studied, respected, esteemed, and exalted.
Delusions also offer safety, security, solidness, and soundness.
Our modern milieu has revealed that people are extremely adept at believing falsehoods and virtually incapable of seeing truth – even obvious, mundane ones.
They seem perfectly adept at lying to themselves with absolute conviction. Most lie to themselves with absolute conviction several hundred times daily, leaving no space for doubt residues. Modern people are more than happy to put their daydreams to the test – at least the daydreams the System promotes.
Does this mean that modern people are clinically insane?
If by clinically insane we mean “mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot conduct her/his affairs due to psychosis, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior,” then yeah, I guess most modern people are clinically insane.
So what now, Mr. Vizinczey? Wait for reality to reassert itself through chance, randomness, and chaos?
November 5, 2023
Self-Delusions Are Almost Certainly Suicidal
What others think may harm or kill you, depending on chance. Your own delusions, however, are almost certainly to be suicidal.
The above is another brief excerpt from Stephen Vizinczey’s philosophical detour The Rules of Chaos, which contains many astute insights despite being limited by firmly materialist assumptions.
I refer to the passage to point out that the vast quantity of material published on blogs these days – including some of the material on this blog – deals exclusively with how the delusions of others may harm or kill us. Vizinczey reminds us that this is all fine and well, but when it comes to harm (or its opposite, one hopes), our thoughts are incalculably more significant than the thoughts of others could ever be. This applies especially to delusions.
It is no exaggeration to say that virtually everything the System thinks these days is intentionally designed to harm or kill us. The thinking of most people aligns seamlessly with the System, which means the thinking of most of the people around us is probably also harmful, regardless of intent. The roots of these detrimental modes of thinking extend down to errant and damaging metaphysical assumptions – the same sort of assumptions that limit Vizinczey’s insights in The Rules of Chaos.
Most people take metaphysical assumptions for granted. This worked to some extent in earlier stages of human consciousness when belief in the supernatural and the divine was innate. People did not have to think too deeply about their assumptions then and were more or less free to go with the flow of their respective communities.
Contemporary people can no longer indulge in this “luxury,” for lack of a better way of putting it, primarily because the metaphysical assumptions promulgated by those who rule our communities and societies are actively killing and spiritually destroying, leading most toward a state of abysmal despair and spiritual death.
Of course, the masses – who ingest and amplify the destructive metaphysical assumptions – are not absolved of responsibility when they take such assumptions for granted in the same manner earlier people were absolved of taking personal responsibility.
Unlike earlier people, contemporary man must take personal responsibility for his metaphysical assumptions. On the surface, such an obligation may seem like an external constraint or compulsion, but a deeper look reveals this “assumption” of assumptions to the movement of freedom.
Those who regard freedom as little more than Enlightenment-induced relativity poison yearn to return to days when assumptions could be taken for granted rather than “assumed.” At the same time, those who hold such yearnings fail to recognize that taken-for-granted metaphysical assumptions of earlier religious times were true but inevitably less free.
Why does this matter?
For the simple reason that metaphysical assumptions pointing to greater truths require greater freedom to personally “assume” – that is, to personally take on. Those who loathe freedom would benefit from understanding it as the assumption of personal responsibility for thinking rather than as a free license for limitless whim and desire indulgence.
The belief that assuming personal responsibility for one’s metaphysical assumptions is harmful and potentially deadly is rooted in fear. Unfortunately, fear offers fertile soil for delusions. Metaphysical assumptions cannot emanate entirely from consensus or other external factors anymore. To believe such is perhaps the worst self-delusion of all.
In the Rules of Chaos, Vizinczey also notes that "We have less control over others and more power over ourselves than we like to think."
We trick ourselves into believing that we are exercising freedom when we seek to control or have power over others, but we are only truly free when we exercise control and power over ourselves.
Throughout history, men have built themselves imaginary prisons, where their deepest longest longings for joy and adventure are barred from fulfillment by the iron gates of “impossibility.” The world is full of people whom no one put in chains but who bind themselves with frozen thoughts and fears.
And, more significantly, with frozen metaphysical assumptions!
A man whose mind conforms to the conditioned responses of daily life is a coward and a slave. To free himself, he must free his imagination, so that he may conceive the world as it is: a place where it is possible to be adventurous, that is, to be himself.
The matter of “conceiving the world as it is” represents the core of what metaphysical assumptions are all about, but this requires discovering what being “ourselves” really means within the context of Creation, not as Vizinczey’s assumptions presume, within the context of random meaninglessness and chance.
A man is free when he understands that every act is like the act of love.
I’m not sure what ultimate purpose the act of love serves in Vizinczey’s chaotic world of chance and randomness; however, the observation is true and reminds us of what should underpin our metaphysical assumptions and our personal responsibility for them, to say nothing of the utter necessity of recognizing and challenging our own delusions.
The above is another brief excerpt from Stephen Vizinczey’s philosophical detour The Rules of Chaos, which contains many astute insights despite being limited by firmly materialist assumptions.
I refer to the passage to point out that the vast quantity of material published on blogs these days – including some of the material on this blog – deals exclusively with how the delusions of others may harm or kill us. Vizinczey reminds us that this is all fine and well, but when it comes to harm (or its opposite, one hopes), our thoughts are incalculably more significant than the thoughts of others could ever be. This applies especially to delusions.
It is no exaggeration to say that virtually everything the System thinks these days is intentionally designed to harm or kill us. The thinking of most people aligns seamlessly with the System, which means the thinking of most of the people around us is probably also harmful, regardless of intent. The roots of these detrimental modes of thinking extend down to errant and damaging metaphysical assumptions – the same sort of assumptions that limit Vizinczey’s insights in The Rules of Chaos.
Most people take metaphysical assumptions for granted. This worked to some extent in earlier stages of human consciousness when belief in the supernatural and the divine was innate. People did not have to think too deeply about their assumptions then and were more or less free to go with the flow of their respective communities.
Contemporary people can no longer indulge in this “luxury,” for lack of a better way of putting it, primarily because the metaphysical assumptions promulgated by those who rule our communities and societies are actively killing and spiritually destroying, leading most toward a state of abysmal despair and spiritual death.
Of course, the masses – who ingest and amplify the destructive metaphysical assumptions – are not absolved of responsibility when they take such assumptions for granted in the same manner earlier people were absolved of taking personal responsibility.
Unlike earlier people, contemporary man must take personal responsibility for his metaphysical assumptions. On the surface, such an obligation may seem like an external constraint or compulsion, but a deeper look reveals this “assumption” of assumptions to the movement of freedom.
Those who regard freedom as little more than Enlightenment-induced relativity poison yearn to return to days when assumptions could be taken for granted rather than “assumed.” At the same time, those who hold such yearnings fail to recognize that taken-for-granted metaphysical assumptions of earlier religious times were true but inevitably less free.
Why does this matter?
For the simple reason that metaphysical assumptions pointing to greater truths require greater freedom to personally “assume” – that is, to personally take on. Those who loathe freedom would benefit from understanding it as the assumption of personal responsibility for thinking rather than as a free license for limitless whim and desire indulgence.
The belief that assuming personal responsibility for one’s metaphysical assumptions is harmful and potentially deadly is rooted in fear. Unfortunately, fear offers fertile soil for delusions. Metaphysical assumptions cannot emanate entirely from consensus or other external factors anymore. To believe such is perhaps the worst self-delusion of all.
In the Rules of Chaos, Vizinczey also notes that "We have less control over others and more power over ourselves than we like to think."
We trick ourselves into believing that we are exercising freedom when we seek to control or have power over others, but we are only truly free when we exercise control and power over ourselves.
Throughout history, men have built themselves imaginary prisons, where their deepest longest longings for joy and adventure are barred from fulfillment by the iron gates of “impossibility.” The world is full of people whom no one put in chains but who bind themselves with frozen thoughts and fears.
And, more significantly, with frozen metaphysical assumptions!
A man whose mind conforms to the conditioned responses of daily life is a coward and a slave. To free himself, he must free his imagination, so that he may conceive the world as it is: a place where it is possible to be adventurous, that is, to be himself.
The matter of “conceiving the world as it is” represents the core of what metaphysical assumptions are all about, but this requires discovering what being “ourselves” really means within the context of Creation, not as Vizinczey’s assumptions presume, within the context of random meaninglessness and chance.
A man is free when he understands that every act is like the act of love.
I’m not sure what ultimate purpose the act of love serves in Vizinczey’s chaotic world of chance and randomness; however, the observation is true and reminds us of what should underpin our metaphysical assumptions and our personal responsibility for them, to say nothing of the utter necessity of recognizing and challenging our own delusions.
November 4, 2023
This Blog Will Start Featuring Chick Pics
Things are getting a bit stale around here, so I've decided to shake things up by becoming one of those blogs that features chick pics once or twice a week because whatever.
My first saucy entry -- topless chicks in short skirts.
Enjoy!
My first saucy entry -- topless chicks in short skirts.
Enjoy!
November 3, 2023
Fair and Balanced Only Aids and Abets System Manipulation
I recently sifted through some blog posts written by others during the height of the birdemic and the peck campaign.
The authors of some of these blogs promote themselves as rational, logical, clear-thinking individuals. As such, they tended to apply a "fair and balanced" approach to the birdemic and the peck. Needless to say, the fair and balanced posts written from 2020-2022 have not aged well, which immediately draws the reason, logic, and clear thinking of such authors into question.
The problem with fair and balanced is not about being right or wrong. No blogger or writer I know has ever been or will ever be one hundred percent right about everything, particularly not concerning predictions, conjectures, and speculations; the problem lies instead in the fatal belief that System communications and narratives deserve fair and balanced assessments and interpretations and the even more tragic certitude that such fair and balanced deliberation and argumentation somehow draws both writer and reader closer to the truth.
Fair and balanced thinkers and writers appear oblivious to the true nature and underlying goal of System communications and narratives, which inevitably always boil down to one thing – manipulation.
When you hear a politician speak, or read a press release or a media headline; you are not dealing with an attempt to communicate the truth about reality; you are dealing with language as calculated manipulation ('language' here including visual, symbolic, audio and other media).
Manipulation is language intended to shape attitudes, thought-processes and actions.
I can think of only two reasons why writers and thinkers would choose to apply fair and balanced perspectives to System communications:
They are oblivious to the lies, propaganda, and manipulation inherent in System communications, or they employ the fair and balanced approach to System lies to obfuscate or rationalize their own personal insincerity and manipulative calculations.
Neither puts fair and balanced writers and thinkers in a favorable light. The reason, logic, and clear thinking of the former are ultimately questionable, while the motivations of the latter are immediately suspect.
Fatal ignorance and dubious motivations aside, writers and thinkers who were fair and balanced about things like the birdemic and the peck campaign actively expanded the lies and manipulation, irrespective of intentions.
How?
By willingly attempting to engage in truthful discourse with known liars who are peddling zero information:
The correct inference concerning any specific communication from The System is therefore, quite simply, that: System statements contain zero information.
Yet we are almost all of us guilty of trying to sift truth; when the reality is that public discourse contains zero information.
How do we fall into this trap? By attempting to have discourse with liars!
The fact is that all discourse assumes a basic truthfulness - therefore, if we have discourse with liars, we must already have decided that they are basically truthful.
And when 'they' are Not basically truthful - but instead are merely manipulating us - then we have been sucked into their world-of-lies.
We have been trapped-into interacting with zero information!
Therefore, we have-already-been sucked into the world of manipulative lies as soon as we engage in discourse with them!
Dr. Charlton notes that virtually everyone falls into the System trap of engaging in discourse, which makes sense when you consider that System communications are ubiquitous, practically unavoidable, and broadcast 24/7 via various media.
Add the masses, governments, and insititutions – who all serve as amplifiers of System communication and manipulation – to the mix, and it becomes evident how difficult disengaging from discourse can be.
That said, the fair and balanced crew of writers and thinkers remain among the most egregious of all discourse participants, primarily because they treat System communication as an opportunity for discourse, which is very different from recognizing the System-initiated attempts at discourse as untruthful, disingenuous, and manipulative – and simply and clearly stating as much.
The authors of some of these blogs promote themselves as rational, logical, clear-thinking individuals. As such, they tended to apply a "fair and balanced" approach to the birdemic and the peck. Needless to say, the fair and balanced posts written from 2020-2022 have not aged well, which immediately draws the reason, logic, and clear thinking of such authors into question.
The problem with fair and balanced is not about being right or wrong. No blogger or writer I know has ever been or will ever be one hundred percent right about everything, particularly not concerning predictions, conjectures, and speculations; the problem lies instead in the fatal belief that System communications and narratives deserve fair and balanced assessments and interpretations and the even more tragic certitude that such fair and balanced deliberation and argumentation somehow draws both writer and reader closer to the truth.
Fair and balanced thinkers and writers appear oblivious to the true nature and underlying goal of System communications and narratives, which inevitably always boil down to one thing – manipulation.
When you hear a politician speak, or read a press release or a media headline; you are not dealing with an attempt to communicate the truth about reality; you are dealing with language as calculated manipulation ('language' here including visual, symbolic, audio and other media).
Manipulation is language intended to shape attitudes, thought-processes and actions.
I can think of only two reasons why writers and thinkers would choose to apply fair and balanced perspectives to System communications:
They are oblivious to the lies, propaganda, and manipulation inherent in System communications, or they employ the fair and balanced approach to System lies to obfuscate or rationalize their own personal insincerity and manipulative calculations.
Neither puts fair and balanced writers and thinkers in a favorable light. The reason, logic, and clear thinking of the former are ultimately questionable, while the motivations of the latter are immediately suspect.
Fatal ignorance and dubious motivations aside, writers and thinkers who were fair and balanced about things like the birdemic and the peck campaign actively expanded the lies and manipulation, irrespective of intentions.
How?
By willingly attempting to engage in truthful discourse with known liars who are peddling zero information:
The correct inference concerning any specific communication from The System is therefore, quite simply, that: System statements contain zero information.
Yet we are almost all of us guilty of trying to sift truth; when the reality is that public discourse contains zero information.
How do we fall into this trap? By attempting to have discourse with liars!
The fact is that all discourse assumes a basic truthfulness - therefore, if we have discourse with liars, we must already have decided that they are basically truthful.
And when 'they' are Not basically truthful - but instead are merely manipulating us - then we have been sucked into their world-of-lies.
We have been trapped-into interacting with zero information!
Therefore, we have-already-been sucked into the world of manipulative lies as soon as we engage in discourse with them!
Dr. Charlton notes that virtually everyone falls into the System trap of engaging in discourse, which makes sense when you consider that System communications are ubiquitous, practically unavoidable, and broadcast 24/7 via various media.
Add the masses, governments, and insititutions – who all serve as amplifiers of System communication and manipulation – to the mix, and it becomes evident how difficult disengaging from discourse can be.
That said, the fair and balanced crew of writers and thinkers remain among the most egregious of all discourse participants, primarily because they treat System communication as an opportunity for discourse, which is very different from recognizing the System-initiated attempts at discourse as untruthful, disingenuous, and manipulative – and simply and clearly stating as much.
November 1, 2023
Beware of Daily Bread Buttered on Both Sides
The daily bread in the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew and Luke petitions God to provide us with the means necessary for our sustenance on a day-to-day basis. The appeal refers to food specifically but likely implies everything required to sustain us in life.
The daily aspect reflects the trust and faith in God’s ability and motivation to provide each individual with what they need each and every day. Since man cannot live by bread alone, God’s provisions also include things required to sustain us spiritually and help us prepare for life everlasting – once again, on a daily basis.
At the most fundamental level, the appeal for daily bread is an appeal for God to grant us the things that not only sustain us but also benefit us day-to-day, particularly from a spiritual perspective.
The Lord’s Prayer makes no mention of butter. One hopes that Christians recognize which side of the daily bread provides for their spiritual benefit, on which side they can find all that is spiritually helpful, and on which side they should invest their energies.
Knowing the buttered side of the bread from a spiritual perspective is about knowing what thoughts to think and what actions to take to remain or advance in a favorable spiritual situation or to avoid a bad one. The buttered side also inevitably entails knowing whom to please.
Christians often conflate spiritual benefits with purely material ones, leading to choices that provide material advantages at the expense of spiritual needs and benefits.
As with everything else, the buttered side of the bread boils down to motivation and its consequent choices.
This does not entail that material benefits and spiritual benefits are incompatible. Material benefits and spiritual benefits can be compatible and often are. If we are honest, such benefits will appear together as butter on one side of the bread.
It’s when the bread appears buttered on both sides that choices need to be made.
Note: Everyone know that when bread falls, it tends to land on the buttered side – an expression of pessimism par excellence. However, it could also point to the entropy inherent in this world. With this in mind, I suspect the kind of butter that hits the floor makes all the difference in the end.
The daily aspect reflects the trust and faith in God’s ability and motivation to provide each individual with what they need each and every day. Since man cannot live by bread alone, God’s provisions also include things required to sustain us spiritually and help us prepare for life everlasting – once again, on a daily basis.
At the most fundamental level, the appeal for daily bread is an appeal for God to grant us the things that not only sustain us but also benefit us day-to-day, particularly from a spiritual perspective.
The Lord’s Prayer makes no mention of butter. One hopes that Christians recognize which side of the daily bread provides for their spiritual benefit, on which side they can find all that is spiritually helpful, and on which side they should invest their energies.
Knowing the buttered side of the bread from a spiritual perspective is about knowing what thoughts to think and what actions to take to remain or advance in a favorable spiritual situation or to avoid a bad one. The buttered side also inevitably entails knowing whom to please.
Christians often conflate spiritual benefits with purely material ones, leading to choices that provide material advantages at the expense of spiritual needs and benefits.
As with everything else, the buttered side of the bread boils down to motivation and its consequent choices.
This does not entail that material benefits and spiritual benefits are incompatible. Material benefits and spiritual benefits can be compatible and often are. If we are honest, such benefits will appear together as butter on one side of the bread.
It’s when the bread appears buttered on both sides that choices need to be made.
Note: Everyone know that when bread falls, it tends to land on the buttered side – an expression of pessimism par excellence. However, it could also point to the entropy inherent in this world. With this in mind, I suspect the kind of butter that hits the floor makes all the difference in the end.
October 31, 2023
Metaphysical Assumptions Must Be Assumed
Metaphysical assumptions are beliefs about the fundamental nature of reality. Metaphysics deals with ideas, doctrines, or an asserted reality that lies beyond the sense perception of humans.
As such, metaphysical assumptions cannot be proven through the objective or empirical study of material reality. Instead, they rely on the acceptance of ideas and beliefs as true, albeit without proof.
Empirical science has yet to succeed in proving the existence of the spiritual. At the same time, empirical science cannot disprove the spiritual. Hence, belief in the spiritual exists in the realm of assumptions – in things that are accepted as true without being proven as such at the material level of the senses.
The metaphysics part is the hope that these unproven beliefs are not merely fantastic notions or pipe dreams but reach all the way down to the fundamental nature of reality, thereby explaining or fleshing out aspects of reality that extend beyond the reaches and capacities of empirical study.
An empirical study of the universe can formulate the idea of the Big Bang, but it offers little to explain the overarching purpose or meaning of the Big Bang.
In light of this, all serious metaphysical assumptions require assumption; that is, all individuals holding such assumptions must take them on and shoulder personal responsibility for them.
Metaphysical assumptions cannot be assumed in a “take for granted” sense; they must be assumed in a “taken on” sense -- assuming responsibility -- complete with the willingness to regard them as a personal duty by which one structures, approaches, and lives life.
To know our metaphysical assumptions is to live by them and to live by our metaphysical assumptions is to know them.
Such assumptions require choice, and choice relies on motivation.
An honest appraisal of the motivations behind one’s choices is the first step toward “knowing” the truth of one’s metaphysical assumptions.
Claiming that one has no choice in such matters or that motivation is of little consequence in metaphysics should be taken as signs that inevitably point to the presence of seriously flawed or false metaphysical assumptions, regardless of the supposed authority from which such assumptions arise.
As such, metaphysical assumptions cannot be proven through the objective or empirical study of material reality. Instead, they rely on the acceptance of ideas and beliefs as true, albeit without proof.
Empirical science has yet to succeed in proving the existence of the spiritual. At the same time, empirical science cannot disprove the spiritual. Hence, belief in the spiritual exists in the realm of assumptions – in things that are accepted as true without being proven as such at the material level of the senses.
The metaphysics part is the hope that these unproven beliefs are not merely fantastic notions or pipe dreams but reach all the way down to the fundamental nature of reality, thereby explaining or fleshing out aspects of reality that extend beyond the reaches and capacities of empirical study.
An empirical study of the universe can formulate the idea of the Big Bang, but it offers little to explain the overarching purpose or meaning of the Big Bang.
In light of this, all serious metaphysical assumptions require assumption; that is, all individuals holding such assumptions must take them on and shoulder personal responsibility for them.
Metaphysical assumptions cannot be assumed in a “take for granted” sense; they must be assumed in a “taken on” sense -- assuming responsibility -- complete with the willingness to regard them as a personal duty by which one structures, approaches, and lives life.
To know our metaphysical assumptions is to live by them and to live by our metaphysical assumptions is to know them.
Such assumptions require choice, and choice relies on motivation.
An honest appraisal of the motivations behind one’s choices is the first step toward “knowing” the truth of one’s metaphysical assumptions.
Claiming that one has no choice in such matters or that motivation is of little consequence in metaphysics should be taken as signs that inevitably point to the presence of seriously flawed or false metaphysical assumptions, regardless of the supposed authority from which such assumptions arise.
October 30, 2023
The Only Point About Other People’s False Assumptions Is What They Can Teach Us About Our Own
To reflect upon the delusions of civilization cannot, of course, serve any other useful purpose than to help us detect our own delusions which we acquired unawares in school and from books, magazines, television or while necking at the movies. There is nothing any of us could possibly do about the chaotic mental condition of mankind; so the only point about other people’s false assumptions is what they can teach us about our own.
This excerpt from Stephen Vizinczey’s The Rules of Chaos provides a pointed reminder about discerning false assumptions, delusions, and general stupidity in others. If such discernment does little more than make us feel good about our own intelligence, then we have not penetrated deeply enough into the genuine point of recognizing false assumptions. I'm not sure about this being the only point, but it is a big one.
We often interpret our discernment of false assumptions and stupidity in others as confirmation of our own sagacity and wisdom when we ought to use such moments of clarity, understanding, and acuity to determine what they might contribute to revealing about our own lingering false assumptions, delusions, and stupidity – and then learning from this and taking responsibility for this learning.
Indeed, the ability to learn from the follies of others to recognize one’s own is another vital element of intelligence. Without this ability, one cannot hope to become as bright as one’s capacities would otherwise allow. The difficulty is that most of us tend to assume that seeing through someone else’s stupidity is proof of our own wisdom.
Vizinczey was an avowed atheist of the “could no longer bring himself to follow the hypocrisy of organized religion” variety. Rather than explore the possibility of believing in God beyond the context of churches and organized religion, Vizinczey chose the well-trodden path of the mid-to-late twentieth-century freethinking artist/intellectual. His motivations for doing so are likely complex, but I suppose they come down to simply going with the twentieth-century flow of secularization and despiritualization in the West.
Vizinczey offers some interesting points and insights, and I consider him an intelligent, albeit limited, writer. His motivations are often blurred, yet I believe he was essentially writing and thinking from a “good place,” or at least as good a place he could occupy given his materialism.
Having said that, I firmly believe that his metaphysical assumptions are false. The trick now is avoiding feelings of superiority and figuring out what this discernment may reveal about my metaphysical assumptions.
Lately, I have been doing the same with nearly all the nineteenth and twentieth-century writers and thinkers I have read or encountered, to say nothing of the endless parade of civilizational delusions we have all endured since 2020.
This excerpt from Stephen Vizinczey’s The Rules of Chaos provides a pointed reminder about discerning false assumptions, delusions, and general stupidity in others. If such discernment does little more than make us feel good about our own intelligence, then we have not penetrated deeply enough into the genuine point of recognizing false assumptions. I'm not sure about this being the only point, but it is a big one.
We often interpret our discernment of false assumptions and stupidity in others as confirmation of our own sagacity and wisdom when we ought to use such moments of clarity, understanding, and acuity to determine what they might contribute to revealing about our own lingering false assumptions, delusions, and stupidity – and then learning from this and taking responsibility for this learning.
Indeed, the ability to learn from the follies of others to recognize one’s own is another vital element of intelligence. Without this ability, one cannot hope to become as bright as one’s capacities would otherwise allow. The difficulty is that most of us tend to assume that seeing through someone else’s stupidity is proof of our own wisdom.
Vizinczey was an avowed atheist of the “could no longer bring himself to follow the hypocrisy of organized religion” variety. Rather than explore the possibility of believing in God beyond the context of churches and organized religion, Vizinczey chose the well-trodden path of the mid-to-late twentieth-century freethinking artist/intellectual. His motivations for doing so are likely complex, but I suppose they come down to simply going with the twentieth-century flow of secularization and despiritualization in the West.
Vizinczey offers some interesting points and insights, and I consider him an intelligent, albeit limited, writer. His motivations are often blurred, yet I believe he was essentially writing and thinking from a “good place,” or at least as good a place he could occupy given his materialism.
Having said that, I firmly believe that his metaphysical assumptions are false. The trick now is avoiding feelings of superiority and figuring out what this discernment may reveal about my metaphysical assumptions.
Lately, I have been doing the same with nearly all the nineteenth and twentieth-century writers and thinkers I have read or encountered, to say nothing of the endless parade of civilizational delusions we have all endured since 2020.
October 28, 2023
A Couple of Quick Climate Crisis Questions
Anyone happen to know what the carbon footprint of an average bomb or missile happens to be?
I only ask because a lot of them have exploded over the past two years or so, and I suspect all of them have negatively affected the environment, to say nothing of their impact on global warming.
So . . . how are we supposed to meet our climate targets if we keep blowing things up?
I only ask because a lot of them have exploded over the past two years or so, and I suspect all of them have negatively affected the environment, to say nothing of their impact on global warming.
So . . . how are we supposed to meet our climate targets if we keep blowing things up?
Evil's Empty Promise of Providing Safety in a Structurally Unsafe World
At the height of the birdemic, when the peck campaign was ramping up, governments and global institutions opted to employ the old
if it can save even one life, then it’s worth it
argument, which ranks among the most fallacious and lamest lines of argumentation said powers frequently utilize.
The “logic” behind no one is safe until everyone is safe was both simple and underhanded.
Locking down the world and pecking every human on the planet was promoted as an effective – nay desirable – course of action even if such a course succeeded in saving just one human life.
Supporting this deceitful line of reasoning was the equally deceptive lie that those in power care about protecting and saving human life.
The falsehood that those in power care about human life is now ubiquitous and undeniable. The whiplash, schizophrenic manner in which the world’s rulers and the masses have shifted from wanting to protect every single life to declaring open war on everyone and everything is a staggering thing to behold, at least to those who remain untethered to mainstream narratives about terrorists, brutes, animals, defenders, aggressors, and so forth.
The world has jarringly shifted from the ominous undertones of no one is safe until everyone is safe to the shrieking cacophony of no one is safe until everybody else dies. All this in the span of about two years.
The inclusion of the safe aspect in both mantras is far too conspicuous to escape comment, and for this I turn once again to Stephen Vizinczey, who offers the following observation in The Rules of Chaos:
Our most dangerous emotion isn’t a thirst for blood but such a seemingly innocent feeling as the desire to feel safe, to be reassured.
Ever since the time of Herod, grown men have been massacring children, not out of cruelty but in order to feel more secure.
As the chaotic world can offer us anything except safety, our longing for security is a longing for incomprehension – the inspiration for every kind of delusion and mad behavior.
Unlike Vizinczey, I don’t view the world as chaotic, but his thoughts on the yearning for safety hit the mark (though I question the cruelty part).
Sadly, the powers aligned against God and Creation continue to exploit this seemingly universal longing for safety in a structurally unsafe world with remarkable ease and effectiveness.
The “logic” behind no one is safe until everyone is safe was both simple and underhanded.
Locking down the world and pecking every human on the planet was promoted as an effective – nay desirable – course of action even if such a course succeeded in saving just one human life.
Supporting this deceitful line of reasoning was the equally deceptive lie that those in power care about protecting and saving human life.
The falsehood that those in power care about human life is now ubiquitous and undeniable. The whiplash, schizophrenic manner in which the world’s rulers and the masses have shifted from wanting to protect every single life to declaring open war on everyone and everything is a staggering thing to behold, at least to those who remain untethered to mainstream narratives about terrorists, brutes, animals, defenders, aggressors, and so forth.
The world has jarringly shifted from the ominous undertones of no one is safe until everyone is safe to the shrieking cacophony of no one is safe until everybody else dies. All this in the span of about two years.
The inclusion of the safe aspect in both mantras is far too conspicuous to escape comment, and for this I turn once again to Stephen Vizinczey, who offers the following observation in The Rules of Chaos:
Our most dangerous emotion isn’t a thirst for blood but such a seemingly innocent feeling as the desire to feel safe, to be reassured.
Ever since the time of Herod, grown men have been massacring children, not out of cruelty but in order to feel more secure.
As the chaotic world can offer us anything except safety, our longing for security is a longing for incomprehension – the inspiration for every kind of delusion and mad behavior.
Unlike Vizinczey, I don’t view the world as chaotic, but his thoughts on the yearning for safety hit the mark (though I question the cruelty part).
Sadly, the powers aligned against God and Creation continue to exploit this seemingly universal longing for safety in a structurally unsafe world with remarkable ease and effectiveness.
